Chamber and committees

Thank you for the opening statement. The committee papers cover the topic extensively.

My first question is perhaps not for the cabinet secretary, as it is a technical question about the draft legislative consent motion. I welcome the fact that that agrees to the relevant provisions of the UK bill. Cabinet secretary, did you say that the Scottish Government does not consent to, or does not agree with consent being given to, the provisions on the extraction of data from digital devices? How does that relate to the draft motion? The motion agrees to the provisions in the UK bill—there is nothing in it that disagrees with or does not consent to anything. What would be the legislative process by which the Scottish Government would pursue not granting consent?

Perhaps I can move on, as I am not convinced that civil justice is currently part of the committee’s remit and we have a lot to cover.

You have raised some valid issues that are linked to the by-products of a two or three-year delay in a case for both the victim and the accused, especially if they are being held on remand. During our visit to HMP Edinburgh, I met a gentleman who is on remand awaiting his trial, which has been postponed twice. He has no real prospect of the trial taking place in the next six months. One could say that that person is languishing in prison having, as of yet, not been found guilty of a crime. There are clear human rights aspects to the matter and we cannot lock people up indefinitely.

What happened to the rule of thumb of maximum detention? We are talking about young lives possibly being ruined because people have been stuck in prison cells awaiting their trial for two or maybe even three years. That does not seem to be an intrinsic part of the society that we purport to have or to want.

Part of the issue is the problem of people. During our visit with the Lord President, we were told that, even with the best will in the world and all the Government money in the world, there would simply not be enough people in the system to clear the backlog. We know that the average age of those in the criminal legal profession is such that most of them will retire before the backlog is cleared. What are we doing about that?

I am sure that remand will also be raised by other members. I have a final, separate question. Why are so many calls to 101 going unanswered or being abandoned? What is being done about that?

Okay.

For the avoidance of doubt, action 11 in the committee’s papers invites members

“to consider whether to agree with the recommendation”

to approve the legislative consent motion, but

“also that consent should not yet be given to the power to extract information from digital devices”.

However, my understanding is that, as a committee, we are voting solely on the motion as worded and not on any subsequent amendments or theoretical motions. Therefore, for the avoidance of doubt, I disagree with action 11 but agree to the motion as worded.

I have no relevant interests to declare.